PRO

Planetary Rescue Operations [Filtered & blocked by Google!]

Posts Tagged ‘israel first’

The OBL Dummy and It’s Israeli Ventriloquists

Posted by msrb on September 14, 2009

The OBL Dummy’s Ventriloquists Seek Continued Unconditional Support for Israel

Whichever way you look at it, the new tape recording by OBL dummy’s ventriloquists has all but has a three-pronged goal: To stupefy, provoke sympathy and extract continued unconditional support for the Jewish State.

It attempts to achieve its goal, first and foremost, by associating the [deceased?] OBL and his terrorists with the 9/11 events with a 180-degree about-turn, changing OBL’s position from one of  “I didn’t do it,” to “The reason for our dispute with you is your support for your ally Israel, occupying our land in Palestine.”

[BTW, Palestine does NOT belong to him, anymore than it does to the Zionist Jews from Europe. And NOT all Palestinians are Muslims. ]

The tape is released at a crucial time, 9/11 anniversary, to dwell on people’s raw emotions, at a time when people’s feelings are maximally susceptible to emotional skewers, and they are most likely to making emotional [rather than] logical and evidential judgments. It does so by forcing the audiences to take sides, having connected a known terrorist, OBL [and by association, all Muslims, Palestinians, Arabs, Iraqis, Afghans …,] with the “evildoers,” on the one hand, and the state of Israel with the “good guys,” the United States, on the other.

The Ventriloquists then get chummier with the American public:

“The time has come for you to liberate yourselves from fear and the ideological terrorism of neo-conservatives and the Israeli lobby,” Reuters reported OBL tape as saying.

Could they also advise the American kids to eat their greens, quit drinking Coke and brush their teeth before going to bed, in their next tape release, please?

In the 11-minute tape entitled “A statement to the American people,”  Bin Laden [sic] said:

“If you think about your situation well, you will know that the White House is occupied by pressure groups.”

Just a moment! If the ventriloquists say the dummy is OBL, then shouldn’t he know the difference between “occupation” by “pressure groups” and a complete and utter occupation by Zionist agents/agenda?

Never mind the traces of explosive that were used for the demolition of WTC towers, which have been found at the Ground Zero, analyzed and documented,  OBL ventriloquists are still trying to mesmerize the people with  “al-Qaeda launched the 9/11 attacks” chant.

Jeff Gates, the author of the following related article is well-informed, and his work  makes good reading:

What Role Did The U.S.-Israeli Relationship Play In 9-11?

By Jeff Gates

September 13, 2009. Information Clearing House — On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: “It’s very good. Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel).”

Intelligence wars rely on mathematical models to anticipate the response of “the mark” to staged provocations. Reactions thereby become foreseeable-within an acceptable range of probabilities. When Israeli mathematician Robert J. Aumann received the 2005 Nobel Prize in economic science, he conceded that “the entire school of thought that we have developed here in Israel” has turned “Israel into the leading authority in this field.”

With a well-planned provocation, the anticipated response can even become a weapon in the arsenal of the agent provocateur. In response to 9-11, how difficult would it be to foresee that the U.S. would deploy its military to avenge that attack? With fixed intelligence, how difficult would it be to redirect that response to wage a long-planned war in Iraq – not for U.S. interests but to advance the agenda for Greater Israel?

The emotionally wrenching component of a provocation plays a key role in the field of game theory war planning where Israel is the authority. With the televised murder of 3,000 Americans, a shared mindset of shock, grief and outrage made it easier for U.S. policy-makers to believe that a known Evil Doer in Iraq was responsible, regardless of the facts.

The strategic displacement of facts with induced beliefs, in turn, requires a period of “preparing the mindset” so that “the mark” will put their faith in a pre-staged fiction. Those who induced the March 2003 invasion of Iraq began “laying mental threads” and creating agenda-advancing mental associations more than a decade earlier.

Notable among those threads was the 1993 publication in Foreign Affairs of an article by Harvard professor Samuel Huntington. By the time his analysis appeared in book-length form in 1996 as The Clash of Civilizations, more than 100 academies and think tanks were prepared to promote it, pre-staging a “clash consensus” five years before 9-11.

Also published in 1996 under the guidance of Richard Perle was A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (i.e., Israel). A member since 1987 of the U.S. Defense Policy Advisory Board, this self-professed Zionist became its chairman in 2001. As a key adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Perle’s senior Pentagon post helped lay the required foundation for removing Saddam Hussein as part of a Greater Israel strategy, a key theme of A Clean Break released five years before 9-11.

A mass murder, articles, books, think tanks and Pentagon insiders, however, are not enough to manage the variables in a “probabilistic” war-planning model. Supportive policy makers are also required to lend the appearance of legitimacy and credibility to an operation justified by intelligence fixed around a pre-determined agenda.

That role was eagerly filled by Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, a Jewish Zionist from Connecticut, and Jon Kyl, a Christian Zionist from Arizona, when they co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Echoing Tel Aviv’s agenda in A Clean Break, their bill laid another mental thread in the public mindset by calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein three years before 9-11.

The legislation also appropriated $97 million, largely to promote that Zionist agenda. Distracted by mid-term Congressional elections and by impeachment proceedings commenced in reaction to a well-timed presidential affair involving White House intern Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton signed that agenda into law October 31, 1998 – five years before the U.S.-led invasion that removed Saddam Hussein.

After 9-11, John McCain and Joe Lieberman became inseparable travel companions and irrepressible advocates for the invasion of Iraq. Looking “presidential” aboard the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt in January 2002, McCain laid another key thread when he waved an admiral’s cap while proclaiming, alongside Lieberman, “On to Baghdad.”

By Way of Deception

The chutzpah with which this game theory strategy progressed in plain sight could be seen in the behavior of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, another Zionist insider. Four days after 9-11, in a principals’ meeting at Camp David, he proposed that the U.S. invade Iraq. At that time, the intelligence did not yet point to Iraqi involvement and Osama bin Laden was thought to be hiding in a remote region of Afghanistan.

Frustrated that President George H.W. Bush declined to remove Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War, Wolfowitz proposed a No-Fly Zone in northern Iraq. By 2001, the Israeli Mossad had agents at work for a decade in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. Intelligence reports of Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda also came from Mosul – reports that later proved to be false. Mosul again emerged in November 2004 as a center of the insurgency that destabilized Iraq. That reaction precluded the speedy exit of coalition forces promised in Congressional testimony by senior war-planner Wolfowitz.

The common source of the fixed intelligence that induced America to war in Iraq has yet to be acknowledged even though intelligence experts agree that deception on such a scale required a decade to plan, staff, pre-stage, orchestrate and, to date, cover up. The two leaders of the 9-11 Commission report conceded they were stopped by Commission members from hearing testimony on the motivation for 9-11: the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

The fictions accepted as generally accepted truths included Iraqi WMD, Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi meetings with Al Qaeda in Prague, Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories and Iraqi purchases of “yellowcake” uranium from Niger. Only the last fact was conceded as phony in the relevant time frame. All the rest were disclosed as false, flawed or fixed only after the war began. An attempt to cover-up the yellowcake account led to the federal prosecution of vice-presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby, another well-placed Zionist insider.

Did game theory-modeled pre-staging also include the Israeli provocation that led to the Second Intifada? An intifada is an uprising or, literally, a “shaking off” of an oppressor. The Second Intifada in Palestine dates from September 2000 when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon led an armed march to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount one year before 9-11.

After a year of calm-during which Palestinians believed in the prospects for peace-suicide bombings recommenced after this high-profile provocation. In response to the uprising, Sharon and Netanyahu observed that only when Americans “feel our pain” would they understand the plight of the victimized Israelis. Both Israeli leaders suggested that shared mindset (“feel our pain”) would require in the U.S. a weighted body count of 4,500 to 5,000 Americans lost to terrorism, the initial estimate of those who died in the twin towers of New York City’s World Trade Center-one year later.

The American Valkyrie?

When successful, game theory warfare strengthens the agent provocateur while leaving the mark discredited and depleted by the anticipated reaction to a well-timed provocation. By game theory standards, 9-11 was a strategic success because the U.S. was portrayed as irrational for its reaction – the invasion of Iraq that triggered a deadly insurgency with devastating consequences both for Iraq and the U.S.

That insurgency, in turn, was an easily modeled reaction to the invasion of a nation that (a) played no role in the provocation, and (b) was known to be populated by three long-warring sects where an unstable peace was maintained by a former U.S. ally who was rebranded an Evil Doer. As the cost in blood and treasure expanded, the U.S. became overextended militarily, financially and diplomatically.

As “the mark” (the U.S.) emerged in the foreground, the agent provocateur faded into the background. But only after catalyzing dynamics that steadily drained the U.S. of credibility, resources and resolve. This “probabilistic” victory also ensured widespread cynicism, insecurity, distrust and disillusionment along with a declining capacity to defend its interests due to the duplicity of a game theory-savvy enemy within.

Meanwhile the American public fell under a regime of oversight, surveillance and intimidation marketed as “homeland” security. This domestic operation even features rhetorical hints of a WWII “fatherland” with clear signs of a force alien to the U.S. with its welcome embrace of open dissent. Is this operation meant to protect Americans or to shield those responsible for this insider operation from Americans?

By manipulating the shared mindset, skilled game theory war-planners can wage battles in plain sight and on multiple fronts with minimal resources. One proven strategy: Pose as an ally of a well-armed nation predisposed to deploy its military in response to a mass murder. In this case, the result destabilized Iraq, creating crises that could be exploited to strategic advantage by expanding the conflict to Iran, another key Israeli goal announced in A Clean Break-seven years before the invasion of Iraq.

Which nation benefitted from the deployment of coalition forces to the region? Today’s mathematically model-able outcome undermined U.S. national security by overextending its military, discrediting its leadership, degrading its financial condition and disabling its political will. In game theory terms, these results were “perfectly predictable”-within an acceptable range of probabilities.

In the asymmetry that typifies today’s unconventional warfare, those who are few in numbers must wage war by way of deception-non-transparently and with means that leverage their impact. Which nation-if not Israel-fits that description?

Treason in Plain Sight?

Game theory war-planners manipulate the shared mental environment by shaping perceptions and creating impressions that become consensus opinions. With the aid of well-timed crises, policy-makers fall in line with a predetermined agenda-not because they are Evil Doers or “imperialists” but because the shared mindset has been pre-conditioned to respond not to the facts but to manipulated emotions and consensus beliefs. Without the murder of 3,000 on 9-11, America’s credibility would not now be damaged and the U.S. economy would be in far better shape.

By steadily displacing facts with what “the mark” can be induced to believe, the few-within-the-few amplify the impact of their duplicity. By steady manipulation of the public’s mindset, game theory war-planners can defeat an opponent with vastly superior resources by inducing those decisions that ensure defeat.

Intelligence wars are waged in plain sight and under the cover of widely shared beliefs. By manipulating consensus opinion, such wars can be won from the inside out by inducing a people to freely choose the very forces that imperil their freedom. Thus in the Information Age the disproportionate power wielded by those with outsized influence in media, pop culture, think tanks, academia and politics-domains where Zionist influence is most rampant.

Induced beliefs act as a force-multiplier to wage intelligence wars from the shadows. At the operational core of such warfare are those masterful at anticipating the mark’s response to a provocation and incorporating that response into their arsenal. For those who wage war in this fashion, facts are only a barrier to overcome. For those nations dependent on facts, the rule of law and informed consent to protect their freedom, such insider treachery poses the greatest possible threat to national security.

America is far less safe than before 9-11. Tel Aviv clearly intends to continue its serial provocations, as evidenced by its ongoing expansion of the settlements. Israel has shown no sign of a willingness to negotiate in good faith or to take the steps required to make peace a possibility. To date, Barack Obama appears unwilling to name senior appointees who are not either Zionists are strongly pro-Israeli. The greatest threat to world peace is not terrorists. The greatest threat is the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

In the same way that a decade of pre-staging was required to plausibly induce the U.S. to invade Iraq, a similar strategy is now underway to persuade the U.S. to invade Iran or to support and condone an attack by Israel. The same duplicity is again at work, including the high profile branding of the requisite Evil Doer. From its very outset, the Zionist enterprise focused on hegemony in the Middle East. Its entangled alliance with the U.S. enabled this enterprise to deploy American might for that purpose.

Only one nation had the means, motive, opportunity and stable nation state intelligence required to take the U.S. to war in the Middle East while also making it appear that Islam is the problem. If Barack Obama continues to defer to Tel Aviv, he can rightly be blamed when the next attack occurs in the U.S. or the European Union featuring the usual orgy of evidence pointing to a predetermined target. Should another mass murder occur, that event will be traceable directly to the U.S.-Israeli relationship and the failure of U.S policy-makers to free America from this enemy within.

Jeff Gates, A widely acclaimed author, attorney, investment banker, educator and consultant to government, corporate and union leaders worldwide, Jeff Gates’ latest book is Guilt By Association—How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War (2008). His previous books include Democracy at Risk: Rescuing Main Street From Wall Street and The Ownership Solution: Toward a Shared Capitalism for the 21st Century.

Related links:

Advertisements

Posted in Afghans, Arabs, Iraqis, Muslims, Obama, obama foreign policy, Palestinians | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Riding The Presidential Trojan Horse

Posted by msrb on November 7, 2008

submitted by a reader

Who will be in charge: Obama or Emanuel?

Who is Rahm Israel Emanuel?

Israel First Rahm Israel Emanuel (born 1959) is/was a dual Israeli/US citizen [Israeli paper Haaretz calls him an Israeli citizen] and a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives since 2003, representing Illinois’s 5th congressional district.

On November 6, 2008, Emanuel accepted an offer from President-elect Obama to become the White House Chief of Staff in Obama’s administration, which begins on January 20, 2009.

Rahm Emanuel was reportedly born in Chicago, Illinois. His father, the Jerusalem-born Benjamin M. Emanuel, a former member of the Irgun (Etzel or IZL), a  Zionist terrorist group active in the British Mandate of Palestine between 1931 and 1948.

Rahm Emanuel was a volunteer in the Israel Occupation Forces during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Open Secrets reports that Rahm Israel Emanuel “was the top House recipient in the 2008 election cycle of contributions from hedge funds, private equity firms and the larger securities/investment industry”.

Following the end of the Clinton presidency, Emanuel went into investment banking, reportedly earning $18 million in just over 2 years at Wasserstein Perella & Co./Dresdner Kleinwort.

During his original 2002 campaign, Emanuel “indicated his support of President Bush’s position on Iraq …”

Emanuel is said to have “mailed a rotting fish to a former coworker after the two parted ways.” On the night after the 1996 election, “Emanuel was so angry at the president’s enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting ‘Dead! … Dead! … Dead!’ and plunging the knife into the table after every name.” His “take-no-prisoners attitude” earned him the nickname “Rahm-bo”.

Emanuel held a seat on the quasi-governmental Freddie Mac board, which paid him $231,655 in director’s fees in 2001 and $31,060 in 2000… During the time Emanuel spent on the board, Freddie Mac was plagued with scandal involving campaign contributions and accounting irregularities…”

A 2006 Chicago Tribune article raised speculation regarding a possible connection between Emanuel’s Congressional election success and convicted former Chicago water department boss Don Tomczak.

USA Today reported in late January 2007 that Emanuel failed to disclose that he was an officer of a family charity, a violation of law requiring members of Congress to report non-profit leadership roles. The charity does not ask for outside donations and is funded by Emanuel and his family.

Emanuel, whose father was in Irgun (a Zionist terrorist group), is a strong supporter of AIPAC, and personally introduced fellow Chicagoan President-elect Barack Obama to the organization’s directors during the 2008 presidential campaign. (Source: Wikipedia)

What other people say about Israel Rahm Emanuel

Christine Cegelis. Cegelis is an IT professional in the Chicago area who ran as the Democratic nominee for Congress against longtime incumbent Henry Hyde in 2004, winning an unexpected 44 percent of the vote. After Hyde announced he would be retiring, she attempted to run again in 2006, but Emanuel—then head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee—backed a Democrat less critical of the Iraq war, Tammy Duckworth, who defeated Cegelis in the primary. Duckworth ended up losing in the general election.

Cegelis said today: “Emanuel has never backed off from his initial support of the invasion of Iraq; he says even knowing everything we know now, he’d still back it. I fear that slating Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff in a sense cancels out the message from Barack Obama that the Iraq war was something we should not have fought in the first place.” See “Democratic House Officials Recruited Wealthy Conservatives.”  (Source)
See also:  http://www.truthout.org/article/special-report-democratic-house-officials-recruited-wealthy-conservatives

David Swanson. Swanson [http://www.afterdowningstreet.org, http://www.democrats.com]

Swanson is co-founder of After Downing Street and Washington director of Democrats.com [not affiliated with the Democratic Party.]

He said: “Reuters quoted Republican strategist John Feehery happily predicting that Emanuel ‘is going to spend most of his time cracking Democratic heads, getting them to move from the left to the middle.’ It’s a reasonable prediction, because Emanuel has spent the past two years doing that on various issues, most notably Iraq. As chair of the DCCC [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] in 2006, Emanuel directed campaign funding overwhelmingly to the more pro-war Democratic candidates and recruited opponents to run against promising anti-war candidates like Christine Cegelis and Jerry McNerney.

“In January 2007, as chair of the Democratic Caucus when the 110th Congress took office with the clearest anti-war mandate in national history, Emanuel spoke to the Washington Post, which reported: ‘Don’t look to Emanuel’s Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It’s Bush’s war, and as it splinters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces.’ For two full years, ‘Emanuel’s Democrats’  maintained that ending the war on Iraq would require passing legislation, when in truth they could have simply stopped funding it, a conclusion reached by a hearing chaired by Senator Russ Feingold. Their pretense that legislation was needed, allowed the Democrats to blame the war on Republican senators’ filibuster power and presidential vetoes.

“Those excuse may be gone now, but my concern is what we’ve learned about Emanuel’s priorities.” (Source)

John V. Whitbeck. Whitbeck is an international lawyer who has advised the Palestinian negotiating team in negotiations with Israel, is author of “The World According to Whitbeck”.

Whitbeck said: “Obama repeatedly pledged unconditional allegiance to Israel during his campaign, most memorably in an address to the AIPAC national convention which Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery characterized as ‘a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning’, and America’s electing a black president has always been more easily imagined than any American president’s declaring his country’s independence from Israeli domination.”

“A further contemptuous message is widely rumored to be forthcoming—the naming as “Special Envoy for Middle East Peace” of Dennis Ross, the notorious Israel-Firster who, throughout the 12 years of the Bush the First and Clinton administrations, ensured that American policy toward the Palestinians did not deviate one millimeter from Israeli policy and that no progress toward peace could be made and who has since headed the AIPAC spin-off “think tank”, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.” (Source)

Paul Craig Roberts

Roberts said: “In ‘Hail to the Chief of Staff,’ Alexander Cockburn describes Emanuel as ‘a super-Likudnik hawk,’ who as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006 ‘made great efforts to knock out antiwar Democratic candidates.'”

“Obama’s election was necessary as the only means Americans had to hold the Republicans accountable for their crimes against the Constitution and human rights, for their violations of US and international laws, for their lies and deceptions, and for their financial chicanery. As an editorial in Pravda put it, ‘Only Satan would have been worse than the Bush regime. Therefore it could be argued that the new administration in the USA could never be worse than the one which divorced the hearts and minds of Americans from their brothers in the international community, which appalled the rest of the world with shock and awe tactics that included concentration camps, torture, mass murder and utter disrespect for international law.'”

“But Obama’s advisers are drawn from the same gang of Washington thugs and Wall Street banksters as Bush’s. Richard Holbrooke …” (Source)

Ralph Nader

In A Letter to Senator Obama, Nader said: “You know quite well that only when the U.S. Government supports the Israeli and Palestinian peace movements, that years ago worked out a detailed two-state solution (which is supported by a majority of Israelis and Palestinians), will there be a chance for a peaceful resolution of this 60-year plus conflict. Yet you align yourself with the hard-liners, so much so that in your infamous, demeaning speech to the AIPAC convention right after you gained the nomination of the Democratic Party, you supported an ‘undivided Jerusalem,’ and opposed negotiations with Hamas– the elected government in Gaza. Once again, you ignored the will of the Israeli people who, in a March 1, 2008 poll by the respected newspaper Haaretz, showed that 64% of Israelis favored ‘direct negotiations with Hamas.’ Siding with the AIPAC hard-liners is what one of the many leading Palestinians advocating dialogue and peace with the Israeli people was describing when he wrote “Anti-semitism today is the persecu  tion of Palestinian society by the Israeli state.”

Posted in Dennis Ross, Iraqi invasion, militant Zionist, pro-war Democratic candidates, Zionist terrorist | Tagged: , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Lord, What about their Moose and Polar Bear?

Posted by msrb on September 21, 2008

Why You Should Be Afraid of Sarah Palin [& Co.,] VERY, VERY AFRAID!

Three thousand years on, except for a few changes in faces and places, the plot remains exactly the same!

“Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel [note that there was no such entity as Israel at the time when this is supposed to have happened,] how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” (I Samuel 15:2-3). From: A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

[Substitute “Alaska,” “America,” “Iraq,” “Afghanistan” …  for “Amalek” in the above and you’ll get the idea!]

Lord, can we shoot their Moose and Polar Bear, and poison their water, too?

Sarah Palin: A Chronic Case of Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is described by psychologists as an unpleasant feeling or stress caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. According to the theory of cognitive dissonance, people have a fundamental cognitive drive to reduce this dissonance and increase the perception of consistency by modifying, or  rejecting one of the contradictory ideas, thus surrendering to the remaining idea. People seek consistency by searching through their own experiences, and by turning to other people for confirmation, a dangerous process known as groupthink.

Here are two contradictory thoughts:

  1. You shall NOT kill. (“Thou shall not kill” is the “Sixth Commandment” – Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17- New American Standard Bible)
  2. Put to death men and women, children and infants … (New International Version)

Which of the two contradictory thoughts above would you surrender to, if

I. Your peers attacked various “Amalekite” nations, country after country, year after year, and put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”

II. Bloodsports turned you on!

III. The only way to fulfill your burning desires was by joining in with the “Israel first” lot.

Related Links:

Posted in Alaska, bloodsports, creationists, polar bears, Ten Commandments | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »